James Carlson wrote: > Kyle McDonald writes: > >>> You're missing at least two downsides that've already been discussed: >>> >>> - The behavior of the system for ordinary users depends on whether >>> the administrator has installed this special package. Thus, users >>> are (at least to some degree) beholden to administrators to set up >>> their environment. >>> >>> >>> >> Then you better not let them choose to not install the /usr/gnu packages >> also. >> > > No, we're talking about default system configurations that can be > tweaked at run time by users selecting different $PATH values, and > you're instead proposing an install-time solution that an > administrator must impose on all of the users of a given system. The > two aren't the same. > > No. You mentioned 'What if the administrator doesn't install the softlink package'. I mentioned what if there is not softlink package and the administrator doesn't install the utilities.
They're not that different. Both are install time options. Both are at the discretion of the Admin. We can't (and shouldn't stop) the admin from creating a less usable system. I'm assuming that if the default environment was implemented with the softlink package, then the softlink package would be installed by default. Yes, not installing the symlink package still leaves the utilities available for the users to pick and choose, whereas not installing the utilities doesn't. But both don't provide the default environment you're looking to provide. Not having the symlink package, also doesn't allow the user to pick and choose. >> I don't think that anyone working on solaris can really beleive they'll >> know better than the administrators of a site what's best for the user >> community at that site? >> > > No, but some of us do think that users know better. > > Yes. I want a system where the environment can be defined on a per user basis. That's what I've been arguing for all along. Making it so that removing the utilities is the only way an admin can do what they need to do. removes this option from the user. Making the User take everything or nothing from /usr/bin also removes that flexibility from the user. (With the exceptions of cludges like 'per user sym-link farms') >> For users who we are successfully hiding the existence of $PATH, as long >> as the administrator (or the defaults) allow them to do what is supposed >> to be allowed at that site, then I don't see a problem. These users are >> not going to be interested in moving .dotfiles around between sites - >> > > Read "NFS home directory" here. > Any systems that are allowed to mount home directories at a site will need to be administered and installed the same. That's not new. I thought you meant in a situation where someone has solaris at home and at a university, and at work. > >> and if they do I don't think should have the expectation that they'll >> just work. >> >> For users who know about .dotfiles, and $PATH, they shouldn't expect to >> be able to move them without changing them. >> >> Is this really the problem we're trying to solve? >> > > Essentially, yes. It goes back to the serendipitous discovery case. > There's a lot of value to be had in not making things difficult for > the user who merely expects things to work. > > I expect those that don't know how things work under the covers to expect much more in the way of things 'just working'. Those that understand how things work, and have used that to make things work the way they want, will expect something different. 1. They'll expect things to not work when they haven't made the changes they know they need to make, and 2. at the same time, they'll expect the customizations they have made to 'Just keep working'. I think some of what's being suggested here will break the 'just keep working' expectation. Doesn't that deserve some consideration? -Kyle
